The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1932 abt - Alonso del Portillo Notaria.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unused image of a letterhead. Soundvisions1 (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letterhead of my grandfather Alonso del Portillo (1903-1984), I am his grandson also, Alonso del Portillo. I released the rights to the picture of his letterhead. What seams to be the problem? Callelinea (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Not really any "problem", as the nom stated it was unused. You logged in today, saw the nom and added it to your userpage. So now the issue is - is there use for this outside of your userpage? Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's an interesting period piece which has some educational value, but should probably move to Commons though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the date, ((PD-Cuba)) seems appropriate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:43rd Ottawa and Carleton Battalion of Rifles.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:The Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

• These images are claimed as ((PD-self)) but the watermark in the corner shows they were taken off ebay. Soundvisions1 (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Astrolabecaroligien.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader has tagged image as PD but mentions Institut du monde arabe as source. However, the institute's website, here, states "L’intégralité des informations présentes sur le site, quelle qu’en soit la forme (et notamment texte, podcast, photographies, contenu vidéo, etc.) restent l’entière propriété de l’Institut du monde arabe. Il est interdit au visiteur d’utiliser ainsi le contenu mis à sa disposition sans avoir préalablement recueilli l’accord express de l’Institut du monde arabe." which reduces to no reproduction without written permission and not a public domain release. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 06:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul audience 1973a.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Editor has uploaded numerous images which are listed as coming from other sources. Given the history of uploads it seems likely this is from another source as well but it is claimed as own work. Soundvisions1 (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see a compelling reason to doubt this work as it stands. The author has no known CVs. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: It isn't an issue of having a track record of copyvios, it is an issue of the amount of images uploaded and the use of the "self" tag for images clearly not in PD (i.e - images after 1923). Looking over the users uploads there are numerous images credited to "Karl Benzinger", "Shea", "Piusbuch", "A Russell" and others that are older, clearly PD items. But than when you start getting into newer works such as File:PaulPeterssquare.jpg, which is from 1962 and credited to "Constantino Pasquale" but uses a GNU/CCL license, and File:Paulkenedy.jpg from 1963 and credited to the White house using a ((PD-USGov-POTUS)). Then there is File:1939pioxii.jpg which is claimed to be "composed by a French nun, who donated it to the Pontiff" who did not like it and gave it to "Madre Pascalina Lehnert, who gave to" the uploader who states "I own this small picture of Pope Pius XII, there is no other copy in the world. I have exclusive copyright." This is somewhat similar to File:Pacelli12.jpg which was also deleted at Wikimedia Commons (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pacelli12.jpg) Clearly the user has an interest in the subject but with the amount of images from other sources one starts to wonder if images such as File:Bea1962.jpg, File:Piusaudience.jpg, File:Ottofaller.jpg and this image were really taken by the uploader. And if the uploader is "Constantino Pasquale" why would they only use their real name for one upload? Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PioXI et Pacelliinaugurazioneradiovaticana2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a photograph and the author is listed as "unknown" and it is licensed incorrectly as PD-art. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1941 Peru victory.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image seems to have a "history" to it. It was first uploaded as a "publicity photo", using the old ((Promophoto)) tag. It was than tagged by another editor 5 months later with ((no source)). The uploader than changed their tag to ((PD-user)) and 5 years (yes, years) later another editor changed the tag to ((PD-self)). Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is a promo photo as was originally claimed it is patently replaceable as Peru has full freedom of panorama in its copyright law as evidenced at commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Peru. Absent a clear and compelling statement to the contrary by the uploader, I would assume that this is non-free and fails WP:NFCC#1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guy Bedarida.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader claims a "self" license however this same image was uploaded by User talk:Margauxpietri who also claimed a "self" license. In looking over both users history's they both may be John Hardy or employees of "John Hardy International" Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1AAA.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unused album cover. Claims self made by "me and Wavanova." Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1new.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unused screenshot. Only description is "tomas kopitkovas" who appears to be the uploader. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1sebastianx.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a frame grab. Unused. No summary, no source Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1st St. Peter's.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Scan of a photo from a magazine or book. Uploader claims ((PD-self)) however it is not established what the original source is. Also the text on the scan tells the history of the church, not the date of the photo being used to illustrate the Church (ie - doubtful it is a photograph taken in 1840/1842/1844) Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article St. Peter's Church, Norwalk states that the church isn't in existence today and references an 1899 history of the church as its sole source. ((PD-US)) if, as seems probably, first published in 1899. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The original, untouched, version of this is at: St Marys Norwalk. Just because the building is not standing in 2010 does not mean it was not standing in other times - 2000? 1990? 1970?. I see nothing about when it was torn down. It is possible somebody (Mathew Brady?) took a picture of the church in the 1800's but cameras were not all that common. The most I could find on the history of the church in relation to this image is "The first Catholic Church was built in Norwalk on west Main Street in the year 1841. Prior to the building of St. Peter’s church, the people of Norwalk had to attend Mass at St. Alphonsus, in Peru", "on October 12, 1853 a tract of land was bought on Milan Avenue", "Father Quinn bought five acres of land on east Main Street for $355.00 in March of 1862, for use as a cemetery" and "The old church on Milan Avenue was torn down in 1906". This image seems to be of the Main Street church, not the Milan Ave church - so I have found nothing about when that was taken down. And the cemetery is clearly visible, and not "new", in the image - so it was taken sometime after 1852. The Century House was demolished in 2008 (http://centuryhouse.stmarynorwalk.org/) so it would not be out of line to guess the image seen in this image was taken sometime in the not too distant past. Other images, possibly taken form the same "book" can be found at: st mary street church. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, hopefully the uploader will tell us. If not, we could try contacting the owner of the St Mary's website. If we haven't heard from the uploader by tomorrow or the next day I'll do that now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• And hardly any sooner said than done. The 1899 book this came from is available on rootsweb. You can see the picture in context here, a bit down the page. Great work by the uploader! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1x.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Black and white version of File:Dmjr.profile.jpg. Uploader seems the be the subject. (File created by me Dan Maldonado Jr) Both images are unused, most likely orphans left over by the deletion of the uploaders attempt at creating a mainspace article about themselves - Daniel Maldonado Jr. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.